Here is the article about Wallace vs Brown. Did the Steelers overreact?

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So, after Wallace said "No, thank you," to the Steelers, it would have been better to have 1 UFA (Wallace) and 2 RFAs (Brown and Sanders)? And if Brown and Sanders had pulled a Mike, refusing to sign their offers and not showing up for camp, where would the Steelers be?

Yeah, not buying it. Brown passes the eye test. He runs sharper routes, has better hands, and is more nifty in space. He is the all around better WR. I'm not saying Wallace is a slug, but his game is built on pure speed. Take away that and he is a below average WR.

I would take Brown anyday over a higher-priced Wallace. Brown might not have the same speed as Wallace but he's much more dynamic.

Seems a lot of posters are arguing the Brown vs Wallace argument- but that isn't the point of the article.

The bad business decision wasn't that the Steelers signed Brown to a multi-year deal & not Wallace.

The bad business decision was that once Wallace rejected the offer he was given, the Steelers then signed Brown to a $42 million deal. Brown was scheduled to be a RFA this offseason. The HIGHEST tender is under $2m. Another team would have to have paid $2m+ to sign him, plus give up draft picks to the Steelers in compensation. Wouldn't have happened. They could have had Brown next season for a third of what he'll cost the Steelers.

Now the Steelers are $16m over the cap, have no hope of signing Wallace at all & overspent on Brown who proceeded to struggle last season after signing his contract deal.

That's a BAD business decision. Brown might not only cost the Steelers Wallace, but someone like Max Starks who could have been re-signed for the difference between Brown's $6.2m 2013 cap hit & the highest RFA tender price.

Argue all you like about who is the better WR between Wallace & Brown- that doesn't make the Steelers over reaction to Wallace not signing his contract any more valid.

Seems a lot of posters are arguing the Brown vs Wallace argument- but that isn't the point of the article.

The bad business decision wasn't that the Steelers signed Brown to a multi-year deal & not Wallace.

The bad business decision was that once Wallace rejected the offer he was given, the Steelers then signed Brown to a $42 million deal. Brown was scheduled to be a RFA this offseason. The HIGHEST tender is under $2m. Another team would have to have paid $2m+ to sign him, plus give up draft picks to the Steelers in compensation. Wouldn't have happened. They could have had Brown next season for a third of what he'll cost the Steelers.

Now the Steelers are $16m over the cap, have no hope of signing Wallace at all & overspent on Brown who proceeded to struggle last season after signing his contract deal.

That's a BAD business decision. Brown might not only cost the Steelers Wallace, but someone like Max Starks who could have been re-signed for the difference between Brown's $6.2m 2013 cap hit & the highest RFA tender price.

Argue all you like about who is the better WR between Wallace & Brown- that doesn't make the Steelers over reaction to Wallace not signing his contract any more valid.

Already answered...

Originally Posted by Slapstick

So, after Wallace said "No, thank you," to the Steelers, it would have been better to have 1 UFA (Wallace) and 2 RFAs (Brown and Sanders)? And if Brown and Sanders had pulled a Mike, refusing to sign their offers and not showing up for camp, where would the Steelers be?

Are you saying that Brown's production was better than Wallace's or the other way around? The numbers bear that Wallace outproduced Brown this year, so that would make sense if that's what you're saying.